Email
One of the most common forms of pre-employment screening is the internet search – trawling the web for information beyond the CV that aids the decision to progress or reject a job applicant. Most recruiters will probably admit to Googling applicants. It's pretty much standard practice these days.
However, news that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled in favour of removing links to "inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive" information at the individual's request will surely have a bearing on what recruiters can find online.
Requests granted under the "right to be forgotten" ruling will force Google, Bing et al to eradicate links so that the information doesn't appear on search results, remaining undiscoverable.
Understandably, recruiters and other commentators have warned that the ruling could detrimentally impact the screening process. If access to certain data is removed, will it cause the "wrong" candidates to be hired? Or is it actually better for people's job prospects?
Promotes fairness
One notion suggests that removing old links can only make screening fairer. Searching the internet presents recruiters with information that they wouldn't ordinarily see, which might then prompt subconscious, prejudiced decisions about an applicant.
A spent conviction, for example, doesn't necessarily mean that an applicant won't perform well in a role. What if the information that was posted was slanderous or not proven? Removing associations between such content and an individual surely must improve screening, preventing recruiters from unfairly discounting people.
Negative connotations
Or could it have the opposite effect? Will the removal of links cast suspicions on an applicant? Jonathan Zittrain, writing for ft.com, wonders whether a "specific notice that a search on someone's name is missing something could lead to negative interference about the person – which might be worse than the substance of whatever has been removed".
Google's senior vice-president for corporate development and chief legal officer, David Drummond, said that the company is doing its best to be transparent but can't "be specific about why we have removed the information, because that could violate an individual's privacy rights under the court's decision".
It's been proposed that search engines could keep "an independent database of takedowns", but would this "resource" eventually form part of the screening process, with the results being used against an individual?
Individual rights v public rights
Mashable says Google has received more than 70,000 requests from aggrieved individuals since the ruling was made. The big dilemma, however, is achieving a balance between an individual's right to be forgotten with the public's right to know certain information.
It's an issue that the search monolith is taking seriously, and the Advisory Council to Google has appealed to the public on how best to strike this balance. Thus far, it has treated each request on a case-by-case basis.
"When it comes to determining what's in the public interest, we're taking into account a number of factors," Mr Drummond elaborates. "These include whether the information relates to a politician, celebrity or other public figure; if the material comes from a reputable news source, and how recent it is; whether it involves political speech; questions of professional conduct that might be relevant to consumers; the involvement of criminal convictions that are not yet 'spent'; and if the information is being published by a government. But these will always be difficult and debatable judgments."
No impact at all
Naturally, using decent candidate vetting practices, such as verifying employment dates and obtaining copies of certificates, should enable recruiters to find relevant information regardless of the ruling – so maybe it won't have an impact at all.
This might appear naive, but there is an ethical question over whether it's right to scan the internet – especially personal sites such as Facebook – for background checks. Employers weren't given access to such information in previous decades, yet people were recruited into jobs just fine.
Ann Bevitt, partner at law firm Morrison & Foerster, who posted a related article in Personnel Today, said that there were lessons to be learned. "Employers shouldn't rely on social media too greatly for background checking," she said.
Her opinion is echoed by members of the HR and recruitment community. One HR business partner told us: "I guess it's dependent on company size and governance. We use a combined approach to assess suitability. We don't use LinkedIn or Google. Our controls and processes probably are sufficient enough to check backgrounds without [the ruling] having a big impact."
Essentially, the point seems to be that recruiters who use "good practice" techniques won't be impacted by the ruling as they should unearth anything untoward which is relevant to the applicant's suitability for a role. As for the rest, maybe now will be a watershed moment, prompting them to ask a reputable recruiter or vetting agent to do the background checks instead.
Elizabeth Smythe is a senior brand journalist for Boyce Recruitment
Read more stories like this:
• Does the "right of erasure" pose a bigger threat than the "right to be forgotten"?
• The "right to be forgotten" may help protect our digital dignity
To get weekly news analysis, job alerts and event notifications direct to your inbox, sign up free for Media Network membership.
All Guardian Media Network content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled 'Advertisement feature'. Find out more here.
;